(no subject)
Dec. 1st, 2004 09:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tephraMark Saturday, May 31, 2042 on your calendars folks, that's the day the Death Clock says I will die. If I managed to reach my first real goal weight I'd only get myself 5 more years. Of course I think BMI is bogus since it doesn't take into account anything but mass and height.*
If I get stuck in sadistic mode I'll bite it on the same day in 2008, pessimistic (which seems likely at the moment) says April 7, 2021. Obviously I need some mind altering drugs if I want to live to retirement age.
*With my height I'd have to weigh 165 or less to have a "healthy" BMI. I don't think it's likely, even if I got my body fat percentage down to 17% (professional athlete range). This would be based on having my percentage of body fat calculated once (skin fold, not immersion, alas) and doing the math. According to that at 17% body fat I'd still be about 280 pounds. Now I'll admit that the skin fold method of determining body fat percentage is prone to error, but knowing that at 5'4" (age 12) and a size 14 (women's) I was 190 pounds I doubt I'd be likely to be all that healthy at 165 pounds and 5'9" and over 30.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck about my weight. It's a number that has little to do with volume. Having significantly more muscle mass that most women I'll always weigh more than the majority of women that wear the same size. I wouldn't mind being a size 20/22 though, even if that is the size range that sells out first on the cool stuff. :)
Oh, and if I did get down to 165 the clock claims I'd buy myself about 11 more years.
If I get stuck in sadistic mode I'll bite it on the same day in 2008, pessimistic (which seems likely at the moment) says April 7, 2021. Obviously I need some mind altering drugs if I want to live to retirement age.
*With my height I'd have to weigh 165 or less to have a "healthy" BMI. I don't think it's likely, even if I got my body fat percentage down to 17% (professional athlete range). This would be based on having my percentage of body fat calculated once (skin fold, not immersion, alas) and doing the math. According to that at 17% body fat I'd still be about 280 pounds. Now I'll admit that the skin fold method of determining body fat percentage is prone to error, but knowing that at 5'4" (age 12) and a size 14 (women's) I was 190 pounds I doubt I'd be likely to be all that healthy at 165 pounds and 5'9" and over 30.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck about my weight. It's a number that has little to do with volume. Having significantly more muscle mass that most women I'll always weigh more than the majority of women that wear the same size. I wouldn't mind being a size 20/22 though, even if that is the size range that sells out first on the cool stuff. :)
Oh, and if I did get down to 165 the clock claims I'd buy myself about 11 more years.
